6 ms·

Oil is such a great industry. Most of the oil production increase in the last years in the US is due to fracking; such an amazing technology where a bunch of c

Oil is such a great industry. Most of the oil production increase in the last years in the US is due to fracking; such an amazing technology where a bunch of chemicals are injected directly into the ground. Ted-ed has a good video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tudal_4x4F0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tudal_4x4F0 Lets screw up the environment by not quitting our society's oil dependency so that a few shareholders of [INSERT_RANDOM_OIL_COMPANY_hERE] can enjoy all the $$$ while future generations (and probably us too given how fast this go) get to pay the price.

hrangozz 7y ago
I will not be at all surprised when disease rates in areas near fracking skyrocket. Of course it will take probably ten years to even loosely correlate illnesses and deaths with "new" oil activity, and longer still for any change of course (if ever) In many ways it feels like we still live in the wild west
- googoogaga 7y ago
  Please source your claims. Fracking most definitely increases rates of low Richter scale seismic activity. However, fracking does not pollute groundwater. Wastewater injection, a process which happens once a fracked well is exhausted, can - if done improperly. However, your claim is nothing but anti-science drivel unless you source it. Do you also believe vaccinations are harmful because they "inject chemicals into your body"? These processes are more nuanced then you think and are heavily regulated.
- hanniabu 7y ago
  While I agree, they'll deny it all and say correlation does not equal causation, we don't care about common sense, and we have better lawyers than so fuck you we'll keep doing this and raking in the cash until your land is decimated and useless and we'll move on to the next plot of land to destroy and profit off of.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - googoogaga 7y ago
    Hyperbolic nonsense. Please try and avoid this kind of comment on HN. It is more fitting for a site like reddit.
    - Analemma_ 7y ago
      A green account, which as far as I can tell was created solely for the purpose of posting comments defending an industry well-known for hiring shills to muddy the waters on established science, should not be lecturing other people on HN norms.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- hedora 7y ago
  Remember: You can never prove that your particular case of cancer came from drinking carcinogens. Sure, all your neighbors died of the same thing, but maybe you’re the only one that would have had it anyway. (This argument has worked in court, which is why I’m repeating it.)
  - mywittyname 7y ago
    Luckily, you don't need to prove 100% culpability to win a civil suit.
conanbatt 7y ago
Lower oil prices is great for everyone, you underestimate the great benefit of cheap energy if you think that way.
- z2 7y ago
  The market capitalization of the large oil companies have also been very closely correlated with oil prices, so cheap oil could in fact hurt their margins rather than help shareholders.
  - conanbatt 7y ago
    As logical as thinking that capping the velocity of cars only harms car companies. It's just not economic thinking.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Using the floorboards and rafters of the house as heating fuel is great for the householder... Until it it isn't. We built a system that depends on borrowing from the future, and it's abundantly clear it's running out of available credit.
  - conanbatt 7y ago
    Resources are meant to be consumed. What right do the future generations have over the right to consume those resources over us?
    - jorge-d 7y ago
      What if we make future generations not needing to actually consume these resources ? Also if you consume all the available non-renewable energy that you have, at one point you will mathematically end up in a dire situation.
      - malvosenior 7y ago
        > What if we make future generations not needing to actually consume these resources ? In all likelihood we'll need to consume the resources available to us to advance to the next level of technology where the existing resources are no longer needed. > Also if you consume all the available non-renewable energy that you have, at one point you will mathematically end up in a dire situation. Mathematically speaking, the resources will be consumed eventually. We just need to try to make as much progress as possible before that happens.
rayiner 7y ago
> Lets screw up the environment by not quitting our society's oil dependency so that a few shareholders of [INSERT_RANDOM_OIL_COMPANY_hERE] can enjoy all the $$$ while future generations (and probably us too given how fast this go) get to pay the price. This is sanctimonious and inaccurate. Oil allows our consumer culture to exist. We make plastic crap with oil, we import it from China using oil, we deliver it using oil to an amazon warehouse, and then deliver it again using oil to a Prime Member. That cycle, in turn, supports everyone else’s job. Indeed, the very web is built in that oil consumption cycle, since Google runs the web and 98% of Google’s business is helping sell more plastic crap to people. Oil and gas is not particularly profitable. In fact it’s less profitable than average: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/roe.html http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/.... Return on equity is single digits, versus 20%+ for companies like Facebook.
- notfromhere 7y ago
  did you miss the last three decades where oil companies have been funding FUD initiatives to prevent any climate action from happening?
- fulafel 7y ago
  I think the jobs argument for ruining the environment is something that should be seriously engaged but it's still intuitively clear to me that we won't run out of useful things to make or do that easily. Transitioning away from oil is a big project.
- jtr1 7y ago
  Please stick to the community guidelines and respond directly to the argument. Calling a response "sanctimonious drivel" does not make your reply more compelling.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 7y ago
    The fact that OP is being sanctimonious is highly relevant to the point I’m making. It’s one thing to hold the opinion that we need to eliminate oil use because of the serious environmental repercussions. But if you’re living in america enjoying American employment options and living standards, you don’t get to engage in “holier than thou” “us versus them” rhetoric. Our entire economy and all of our jobs are predicated on cheap energy. Oil companies make a lot of money because they deliver an essential, high demand product. But given that oil and gas is less profitable than your average industry (as you’d expect a commodity to be) there is no basis for acting as if the benefits of cheap oil flow to oil company shareholders. It flows overwhelmingly to consumers.
fredgrott 7y ago
you forgot that little detail of in the USA we do not have enough clean water to waste in such a manner in the first place.
- hanniabu 7y ago
  You mean poor people don't, which you incorrectly assume that there is any sympathy for the lower class. If you're rich however, like the people that own these companies, you can have all the clean and filtered water you want and move and purchase any land you want so you can continue to live the good life while everyone else gets screwed and pays the price. Out of sight, out of mind. Not my water, not my problem.
privateprofile 7y ago
For anyone interested in this destructive industry, here's an interesting report: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/30/how-the-us-fracking-boom-almost-fell-apart https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/30/how-the-us-frac...
18pfsmt 7y ago
People are electing to buy the fuel with their own money. So, what is the implication of your comment? We should force people to stop doing what they want? I don't have kids, I walk to work, and I sit in the dark a whole lot (in the winter). I could deal if my state banned all motor vehicles (except the interstates, in order to stay Commerce Clause compliant) and coal mining/burning. I doubt most could.

hrangozz 7y ago

I will not be at all surprised when disease rates in areas near fracking skyrocket. Of course it will take probably ten years to even loosely correlate illnesses and deaths with "new" oil activity, and longer still for any change of course (if ever) In many ways it feels like we still live in the wild west

googoogaga 7y ago
Please source your claims. Fracking most definitely increases rates of low Richter scale seismic activity. However, fracking does not pollute groundwater. Wastewater injection, a process which happens once a fracked well is exhausted, can - if done improperly. However, your claim is nothing but anti-science drivel unless you source it. Do you also believe vaccinations are harmful because they "inject chemicals into your body"? These processes are more nuanced then you think and are heavily regulated.
hanniabu 7y ago
While I agree, they'll deny it all and say correlation does not equal causation, we don't care about common sense, and we have better lawyers than so fuck you we'll keep doing this and raking in the cash until your land is decimated and useless and we'll move on to the next plot of land to destroy and profit off of.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- googoogaga 7y ago
  Hyperbolic nonsense. Please try and avoid this kind of comment on HN. It is more fitting for a site like reddit.
  - Analemma_ 7y ago
    A green account, which as far as I can tell was created solely for the purpose of posting comments defending an industry well-known for hiring shills to muddy the waters on established science, should not be lecturing other people on HN norms.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
hedora 7y ago
Remember: You can never prove that your particular case of cancer came from drinking carcinogens. Sure, all your neighbors died of the same thing, but maybe you’re the only one that would have had it anyway. (This argument has worked in court, which is why I’m repeating it.)
- mywittyname 7y ago
  Luckily, you don't need to prove 100% culpability to win a civil suit.

conanbatt 7y ago

Lower oil prices is great for everyone, you underestimate the great benefit of cheap energy if you think that way.

z2 7y ago
The market capitalization of the large oil companies have also been very closely correlated with oil prices, so cheap oil could in fact hurt their margins rather than help shareholders.
- conanbatt 7y ago
  As logical as thinking that capping the velocity of cars only harms car companies. It's just not economic thinking.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Using the floorboards and rafters of the house as heating fuel is great for the householder... Until it it isn't. We built a system that depends on borrowing from the future, and it's abundantly clear it's running out of available credit.
- conanbatt 7y ago
  Resources are meant to be consumed. What right do the future generations have over the right to consume those resources over us?
  - jorge-d 7y ago
    What if we make future generations not needing to actually consume these resources ? Also if you consume all the available non-renewable energy that you have, at one point you will mathematically end up in a dire situation.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      > What if we make future generations not needing to actually consume these resources ? In all likelihood we'll need to consume the resources available to us to advance to the next level of technology where the existing resources are no longer needed. > Also if you consume all the available non-renewable energy that you have, at one point you will mathematically end up in a dire situation. Mathematically speaking, the resources will be consumed eventually. We just need to try to make as much progress as possible before that happens.

rayiner 7y ago

> Lets screw up the environment by not quitting our society's oil dependency so that a few shareholders of [INSERT_RANDOM_OIL_COMPANY_hERE] can enjoy all the $$$ while future generations (and probably us too given how fast this go) get to pay the price. This is sanctimonious and inaccurate. Oil allows our consumer culture to exist. We make plastic crap with oil, we import it from China using oil, we deliver it using oil to an amazon warehouse, and then deliver it again using oil to a Prime Member. That cycle, in turn, supports everyone else’s job. Indeed, the very web is built in that oil consumption cycle, since Google runs the web and 98% of Google’s business is helping sell more plastic crap to people. Oil and gas is not particularly profitable. In fact it’s less profitable than average: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/roe.html http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/.... Return on equity is single digits, versus 20%+ for companies like Facebook.

notfromhere 7y ago
did you miss the last three decades where oil companies have been funding FUD initiatives to prevent any climate action from happening?
fulafel 7y ago
I think the jobs argument for ruining the environment is something that should be seriously engaged but it's still intuitively clear to me that we won't run out of useful things to make or do that easily. Transitioning away from oil is a big project.
jtr1 7y ago
Please stick to the community guidelines and respond directly to the argument. Calling a response "sanctimonious drivel" does not make your reply more compelling.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 7y ago
  The fact that OP is being sanctimonious is highly relevant to the point I’m making. It’s one thing to hold the opinion that we need to eliminate oil use because of the serious environmental repercussions. But if you’re living in america enjoying American employment options and living standards, you don’t get to engage in “holier than thou” “us versus them” rhetoric. Our entire economy and all of our jobs are predicated on cheap energy. Oil companies make a lot of money because they deliver an essential, high demand product. But given that oil and gas is less profitable than your average industry (as you’d expect a commodity to be) there is no basis for acting as if the benefits of cheap oil flow to oil company shareholders. It flows overwhelmingly to consumers.

fredgrott 7y ago

you forgot that little detail of in the USA we do not have enough clean water to waste in such a manner in the first place.

hanniabu 7y ago
You mean poor people don't, which you incorrectly assume that there is any sympathy for the lower class. If you're rich however, like the people that own these companies, you can have all the clean and filtered water you want and move and purchase any land you want so you can continue to live the good life while everyone else gets screwed and pays the price. Out of sight, out of mind. Not my water, not my problem.

privateprofile 7y ago

For anyone interested in this destructive industry, here's an interesting report: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/30/how-the-us-fracking-boom-almost-fell-apart https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/30/how-the-us-frac...

18pfsmt 7y ago

People are electing to buy the fuel with their own money. So, what is the implication of your comment? We should force people to stop doing what they want? I don't have kids, I walk to work, and I sit in the dark a whole lot (in the winter). I could deal if my state banned all motor vehicles (except the interstates, in order to stay Commerce Clause compliant) and coal mining/burning. I doubt most could.